Why PRRR

We are a litigation boutique with a broad range of expertise and experience. We are routinely involved in Canada's highest profile cases, whether complex commercial litigation or class actions, professional discipline or labour disputes. We are trusted to manage the most sensitive legal issues facing businesses of every size, individuals, labour unions, professional regulatory bodies, academic institutions, and public interest organizations. We are devoted to excellence in advocacy in every area of our practice.

Overview

Our specialized Class Action group is experienced both in prosecuting and defending class proceedings.

The Class Action group is a team of talented lawyers and support staff, with recognized expertise in prosecuting and defending class actions, who devote a significant portion of their practices to this complicated and specialized form of litigation. Acting as class counsel on some cases, and as defence counsel on others gives the Class Action group unique strategic insight in an area where most firms typically represent only one side or the other.

Current Class Actions

Related Pages

Student Program

First and foremost, we are committed to excellence in advocacy. Although a number of the lawyers at Paliare Roland concentrate their practice in specific areas of litigation, no one is required to do so. The firm's culture is rooted firmly in the belief that a good litigator is able to do virtually any type of case. Consequently, the ability to advocate on behalf of a client -- any client -- is the primary skill we look for in a lawyer.

Representative Work

Independent Counsel.

Appeals and Judicial Review

Chris Paliare and Richard Stephenson successfully represented our client the Building Industry and Land Development association (BILD) in responding to an appeal in the Divisional Court brought by the City of Toronto. The City sought to overturn a decision of the OMB (now LPAT) regarding the City’s new Development Permit System. The case raised important and novel issues with respect to both municipal planning and administrative law. See: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2019/2019onsc146/2019onsc146.html

Zeng v. The Governing Council of the University of Toronto – Robert Centa – 2018 CarswellOnt 14162 (Div. Ct.) – Public Law/Judicial Review - Fact member of committee found in favour of applicant in past did not constitute reasonable apprehension of bias when viewed from perspective of reasonable person cognizant of all relevant facts, and nothing in conduct of hearing met test for reasonable apprehension of bias — Applicant did not ask member to recuse herself and was barred from raising issue of reasonable apprehension of bias — Applicant had not shown denial of procedural fairness, as he was represented at hearing and received legal advice throughout — Committee was alive to existence of applicant's disability issues and gave consideration to whether they should impact result — There was no error of fact or law that rendered committee's decision unreasonable.

Ombudsman of Ontario v. Hamilton (City) – Robert Centa and Denise Cooney 2018 CarswellOnt 8627 (ONCA) - Public Law/Judicial review Respondent city was subject of appellant provincial ombudsman's report — Ombudsman challenged city boards' private deliberations and issuing of reasons in private, after holding public hearings — Ombudsman issued complaint, and prepared report — City applied for judicial review of report, seeking declaratory relief — Application was granted in part — Reviewing court found that city boards were not local boards under law, and were outside ombudsman's jurisdiction — Reviewing court did not grant broader declaratory relief, as to ombudsman's jurisdiction — Ombudsman claimed reviewing court was in error, on issue of what was local board — City claimed that even if boards were considered local, deliberations were exempt from being made public — Ombudsman appealed from reviewing court's judgment — City cross-appealed — Appeal dismissed; no judgment made as to cross-appeal — City boards did not provide essential services, as to day-to-day operation of city — As investigative and adjudicative bodies, city boards' function was different than those identified as local boards — Ombudsman did not have jurisdiction to investigate alleged non-compliance.

Rob Centa and Michael Fenrick represented a major federal political party on an application for judicial review regarding whether or not the party’s decisions rejecting the applicant’s candidacy for the leadership of the party are properly the subject of judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act. Graff v New Democratic Party, 2017 ONSC 3578 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/h46sv

On July 4, 2017, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in Angus v. Municipality of Port Hope, 2017 ONCA 566, leave to appeal to SCC dismissed, which reviews key principles in determining whether obligations are pursuant to contract or trust. Chris Paliare, Richard Stephenson, and Lindsay Scott successfully represented the Municipality of Port Hope as appellant.

On April 18, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada released Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17which established a new test for determining when an Ontario court is entitled to assume jurisdiction over a foreign defendant for a tort committed outside of Ontario. Chris Paliare, Rob Centa, Tina Lie, and Alysha Shore successfully represented Morgan Van Breda, an Ontario resident injured while staying at a resort in Cuba.

Linda Rothstein, Andrew Lokan and Michael Fenrick represented the Canadian Civil Liberties Association in R. v. Bedford, 2012 ONCA 186 in which the Ontario Court of Appeal struck down substantially all of the Criminal Code provisions regulating prostitution in Canada.

Nini Jones, Jodi Martin and Michael Fenrick represented Gloria Saccon, a ratepayer in Ward 9 of the City of Toronto, in Cusimano v. Toronto (City), 2011 ONSC 7271 a successful appeal that overturned a decision to invalidate the election of Maria Augimeri.

In Mann v. Ryerson University, 2011 ONSC 7378 (Div. Ct.), Robert Centa and Danny Kastner successfully represented the respondent, Ryerson University, on a judicial review of a disciplinary decision. The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review for delay, and as without merit.

Robert Centa represented the plaintiff in Searle v. McCabe, Filken & Garvie LLP Barristers & Solicitors 2011 Carswell Ont 11696, 2011 ONSC 6344 (Div. Ct.). The Divisional Court refused to grant the defendants leave to appeal an order denying them a stay of the plaintiff’s solicitor’s negligence action. The plaintiff’s action against the defendant law firm was allowed to proceed.

Chris Paliare and Richard Stephenson acted successfully for Tom Mason in the Ontario Court of Appeal in Mason v. Chem-Trend, 2011 ONCA 344. The case is now a leading Canadian authority on the (non) enforceability of restrictive covenants in employment agreements.

Ian Roland and Michael Fenrick appeared at the Supreme Court of Canada in the appeal of Fraser v. Ontario (Attorney-General), 2011 SCC 20 on behalf of the interveners, the Canadian Police Association (CPA). The CPA supported the Appellant's position that s. 2(d) of the Charter protects a process of collective bargaining that includes a dispute resolution mechanism.

Michael Fenrick was co-counsel to Professor Kent Roach of the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law on behalf of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association in the first three appeals to be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada respecting the constitutionality of the anti-terrorism offences in the Criminal Code.

The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in Springer v. Aird & Berlis LLP 2010 ONCA 287, 100 O.R. (3d) 585, 81 C.C.E.L. (3d) 235, 68 B.L.R. (4th) 61 (C.A.) that a law firm did not owe a former partner a fiduciary duty to inform him of where he fit in a new firm compensation system, or that his remuneration would be reduced under this new system. Linda Rothstein and Robert Centa successfully represented the respondent law firm, Aird & Berlis.

Linda Rothstein and Robert Centa successfully defended a prominent Toronto law firm from a claim made by a former partner of the firm in Springer v Aird & Berlis LLP, 2009 CanLII 15661 (Ont. S.C.). The Court of Appeal for Ontario recently upheld the decision of the trial judge to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

R v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6 where Andrew Lokan and Danny Kastner represented the Canadian Civil Liberties Association at the Supreme Court of Canada and successfully argued that sentence reductions, even below mandatory minimum sentences, ought to be available as a remedy for unconstitutional state conduct in the criminal justice process.

At the Supreme Court of Canada, Richard Stephenson, Danny Kastner and Jodi Martin successfully represented the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), acting in support of the Consumers Association of Canada and the National Anti-Poverty Organization in Bell Canada v. Bell Aliant Regional Communications, 2009 SCC 40. The court agreed with PIAC's position that telecommunications service providers had overcharged telephone customers in the amount of approximately $300 million. The court ordered the amount rebated to customers.

Ian Roland, Jean-Claude Killey and Michael Fenrick acted on behalf of the intervener, the Canadian Police Association, in the Mounted Police Association of Ontario's successful Charter challenge of the statutory exclusion of RCMP officers from collective bargaining legislation in Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 CanLII 15149 (Ont. S.C.). The Attorney-General of Canada's appeal was heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

In Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. v. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies In Health (2008), 243 OAC 200 (Div. Ct.), Chris Paliare and Robert Centa acted on behalf of the intervener, Bayer. The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review brought by another drug manufacturer, finding that the drug approvals process was transparent, even-handed, fair and reasonable.

Chris Paliare and Robert Centa represented the Honourable Mr. Justice Paul Cosgrove before an Inquiry Committee of the Canadian Judicial Council. In Cosgrove v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 CarswellNat 2740; 2008 FC 941, they represented Justice Cosgrove in an application for judicial review of a ruling of the Inquiry Committee.

In R v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6, Andrew Lokan and Nini Jones represented the Canadian Civil Liberties Association at the Supreme Court of Canada and argued that mandatory minimum sentences for unlawful act manslaughter violate s.12 of the Charter, and that constitutional exemptions may be an appropriate remedy where the mandatory minimum would result in a grossly disproportionate sentence.

In 2011, Andrew Lokan and Jodi Martin acted for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association as interveners before the Federal Court in a constitutional challenge to the hate speech provision (section 13) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The decision in Lemire v. Canadian Human Rights Commission is pending.

In 2011, Andrew Lokan and Jodi Martin appeared at the Supreme Court of Canada, on behalf of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, in Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. William Whatcott. The CCLA supported the respondent's position that section 14 of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Act violates section 2(b) of the Charter. Andrew Lokan also appeared twice at the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in Whatcott v. Saskatchewan Association of Licensed Practical Nurses, 2008 SKCA 6 and Whatcott v. Saskatchewan (Human Rights Tribunal), 2010 SKCA 26.

Linda Rothstein and Rob Centa successfully represented the College of Nurses of Ontario (“ONA”) in Tomaszewska v. College of Nurses of Ontario[2007] O.J. No. 1731, an appeal to the from orders of ONA’s Discipline Committee. The Committee’s decision to revoke the member’s license because of her exploitation of an extremely vulnerable psychiatric patient was upheld by the Divisional Court.

Rob Centa was involved in the successful challenge to the constitutionality of the federal security certificate regime, on behalf of our clients the International Human Rights Clinic at the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto and Human Rights Watch, who intervened before the Supreme Court of Canada in the Charkaoui, Harkat, and Almrei, 2007 SCC 9 cases.

Charkaoui, Re 2007 SCC 9, 44 C.R. (6th) 1, 276 D.L.R. (4th) 594, 54 Admin. L.R. (4th) 1 On February 23, 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada released Charkaoui v. Canada, 2007 SCC 9, a landmark decision on the constitutionality of procedures for determining the reasonableness of security certificates and for reviewing detention under a certificate. The Court held that the security certificate process, which prohibited the named individual from examining evidence used to issue the certificate, violated the rights to liberty and habeas corpus under sections 7, 9 and 10(c) of the Charter. Rob Centa, along with Professor Sujit Choudhry represented the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law – International Human Rights Clinic and Human Rights Watch, who intervened on this case.

Leader Media v. Sentinel Hill, in which Chris Paliare and Andrew Lewis successfully represented the plaintiff at trial (2006 CanLII 35630 (Ont. S.C.), and at the Court of Appeal (2008 ONCA 463), in a contractual dispute involving tax shelter structures in the film industry.

Linda R. Rothstein and Robert A. Centa acted as Amicus Curia at the Court of Appeal in Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Park (2004), 72 O.R. (3d) 480 (C.A.). At issue was a conflict between the Tenant Protection Act and the Mortgages Act. The court held that a Landlord could not terminate a fixed-term tenancy other than at the end of the fixed term, therefore finding the provision of the Tenant Protection Act paramount over the Mortgages Act.

In Jakobek v. Toronto Computer Leasing Inquiry (Commissioner) (2004), 23 Admin L.R. (4th) 272, 188 O.A.C. 259, 49 M.P.L.R. (3d) 262, the Divisional Court upheld the inquiry Commissioner’s jurisdiction to investigate allegations of criminal misconduct. The judicial inquiry, requested by the City of Toronto, was directed to matters within provincial jurisdictions and therefore not unconstitutional. Linda Rothstein and Robert Centra acted for the intervenor, the City of Toronto.

In Jehovah's Witnesses v. Village of Lafontaine, 2004 SCC 48, Andrew Lokan and Megan Shortreed represented the Canadian Civil Liberties Association as an intervener at the Supreme Court of Canada in respect of a challenge to the decision of a municipality to deny permission to a religious group to build a church.

In PCL Constructors Eastern Inc. v. U.A., Local 221, [2003] O.L.R.B. Rep. 171, 90 C.L.R.B.R. (2d) 179 (Ont. Div. Ct.) the applicants, PCL Eastern and PCL Industrial Constructors, had sought judicial review to overturn the Labour Relations Board’s finding that they be treated as one employer for the purposes of the Labour Relations Act. The Divisional Court upheld the Board’s decision. Chris Paliare and Robert Centra intervened on behalf of the Labour Relations Board.

In Mussani v. College of Physicians & Surgeons of Ontario(2004), 248 DLR (4th) 632, The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the requirement under the Health Professions Procedural Code that, where a Discipline Committee of a regulated health profession’s governing college finds that a health professional has engaged in certain specified acts of sexual conduct with a patient, the mandatory penalty is to revoke the professional’s license for a minimum of five years. The appellant in this case argued that the mandatory penalty violated his rights under sections 7 and 12 of the Charter. Linda Rothstein and Rob Centa represented the College of Nurses of Ontario who intervened on this case.

In R. v. Malmo-Levine, 2003 SCC 74, Andrew Lokan and Andrew Lewis represented the Canadian Civil Liberties Association as an intervener at the Supreme Court of Canada in respect of a challenge to the criminal prohibition of the possession of cannabis.

Linda Rothstein, John Monger and Robert A. Centa, represented the University of Toronto in Shank v. Daniels (2002), 57 O.R. (3d) 559, 155 O.A.C. 181, 40 Admin. L.R. (3d) 60 (Div. Ct.). In his judicial review proceeding before the Divisional Court a first year law student sought review of the dean of the law faculty’s decision to impose academic sanction on her for misrepresenting her grades to potential employers. Under the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters the dean could only sanction students who admitted to the academic offence, otherwise the matter should be referred to the Provost for possible referral to a tribunal established under the Code.

Ian Roland and Robert Centa represented the Police Association of Ontario and the Ontario Provincial Police Association as intervenors in Canadian Civil Liberties Assn. v. Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (2002), 220 D.L.R. (4th) 86, 61 O.R. (3d) 649, 97 C.R.R. (2d) 271, 165 O.A.C. 79 (C.A.). The court held that the police chief should have investigated police conduct because, under the act, clear and convincing evidence is not required. Therefore, there should have been a review looking into the complaints of police misconduct raised by arrested female protesters.

Gordon Capern and Megan Shortreed argued and won the leading case on who is entitled to participate in an application for leave to commence a derivative action under the Ontario Business Corporations Act at the Court of Appeals for Ontario: Lederer v. 372116 Ontario Limited2001 CanLII 24159 (O.C.A.).

In Dunmore v. Ontario, 2001 SCC 94, Chris Paliare successfully argued at the Supreme Court of Canada that the total exclusion of agricultural workers from Ontario's collective bargaining regime contravened the Charter.

Together with Max Starnino, Megan Shortreed represented the employees of Maple Bank GmbH’s Canada Branch in a winding up under the Winding-up and Restructuring Act in Maple Bank GmbH (Re), 2017 ONSC 2536.

Ken Rosenberg, Max Starnino and Lindsay Scott are co-counsel along with Koskie Minksy and Siskinds for the representative plaintiffs in the Ontario class action against Sino-Forest Corporation and some of its current and former officers and directors, auditors and underwriters. Ken, Max and Lindsay represent the class interests in Sino-Forest’s CCAA proceeding that started in March 2012.

Ken Rosenberg and Andrew Lokan represented the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) who represent approximately 1400 regional Pilots at Air Canada/Jazz in Air Canada’s CCAA proceedings in Air Canada, Re, 2003 CanLII 49366 (Ont S.C.).

Class Actions

Nini Jones, Jodi Martin, and Glynnis Hawe represented the Waterloo Regional Police Association in a class action proceeding brought against it by current and former members. They were successful in arguing that the civil courts have no jurisdiction over such claims and, in the alternative, that there was no cause of action to warrant certification: http://canlii.ca/t/ht01m

In Spina v. Shoppers Drug Mart, the firm represents the interests of the owners of Shoppers Drug Mart franchises in an action alleging that Shoppers Drug Mart has breached the terms of the Associate Agreement as well as its duty of good faith and statutory duty of fair dealing (where applicable) with regards to how it has been operating the franchise system. The case is certified and examinations for discovery have been conducted. Counsel are preparing for trial.

In MacDonald v. BMO, the firm is class counsel to those who held registered accounts with the defendants. The case pertains to foreign exchange fees and unauthorized transactions in those accounts. The case has been certified and examinations for discovery have been completed. Counsel are preparing for trial.

The firm is class counsel on an auditor’s negligence claim in Excalibur v. Schwartz Levitsky Feldman LLP. The claim was certified by the Court of Appeal and is proceeding to discovery.

The firm is seeking certification of a class proceeding against PayPal entities, in respect of foreign exchange transactions and fees associated with those transactions.

In Toronto Community Housing Corp. v. Thyssenkrupp, the firm obtained compensation on behalf of elevator owners whose elevators contained a faulty emergency braking system that had to be replaced at great cost.

The firm was co-counsel for the class in Markson v. MBNA Canada Bank, 2005 CanLII 39888 (Ont. Div. Ct.). Markson is the key class action case cited for certification of claims for aggregate damages, and the use of statistical evidence. It is also widely cited for its explanation of the "preferable procedure" analysis for certification. The action was settled

Our class action group acted as part of the Class counsel team in Mandeville v. Manufacturers Life Insurance, a class action trial that sought compensation for former Barbados Manulife policyholders who were excluded from the benefits of Manulife's demutualization

In Smith v. National Money Mart, 2010 ONSC 1334, the firm acted as class counsel along with lawyers from a number of other firms.

The firm also acted for the plaintiff class in Joseph v. Quik Payday Inc., and Mortillaro v. Cash Money seeking compensation for the criminal rates of interest that the defendant companies were alleged to charge on their “payday loans”. Both actions have been settled.

In Cannon v. Funds for Canada et al., the firm is co-counsel for the Class in a claim brought on behalf of approximately 10,000 participants in the ParkLane Donations for Canada charitable gift program: 2012 ONSC 399. The claim alleges that the program was a fraud and abuse of the charitable giving provisions of the Income Tax Act.

In Currie v. McDonald’s Restaurants, the firm represented Canadian customers of McDonald’s restaurants who alleged that the company had improperly assured that any prizes given out in their promotional games were intentionally diverted away from Canadian customers. The action was settled.

In a pension surplus case, the firm represented the respondent class after ING Canada Inc. brought an application to determine the proper distribution of a surplus realized in the partial wind-up of the Wellington Insurance Company Pension Plan. The matter was settled.

The firm represented the class of 407 Toll Road customers who had been improperly charged a $30 late penalty fee. The matter was settled.

In Vezina v. Loblaws, the firm acted for the class in a suit relating to an employee of Loblaws who was infected with Hepatitis A and who may have caused the infection to spread. The action was settled.

The firm represented the class of individuals who suffered damages arising from a breakdown in provision of Park’N Fly’s valet parking services from its Airport Road, Mississauga location during the busy post-Christmas period during the week of December 26, 2004. This action was settled.

The firm was co-counsel for the class in McKenna v. Gammon Gold et al., 2010 ONSC 1591 and 2011 ONSC 6630 a securities misrepresentation case brought on behalf of both prospectus and secondary market shareholders. The action was settled.

Constitutional Litigation

Don Eady, Nini Jones, Jodi Martin, Emily Home and Glynnis Hawe represented a group of intervenors who challenged the right of the Provincial Government to change the City of Toronto election ward boundaries in the midst of an election campaign. They were successful at the first instance. See http://canlii.ca/t/httrh. That decision was stayed by the Court of Appeal. See http://canlii.ca/t/hv54t. The appeal before the Court of Appeal is ongoing and will be heard by a 5 member panel of the Court of Appeal on June 10 and 11, 2019. Paliare Roland represented the intervenors on a pro bono basis.

Andrew Lokan and Michael Fenrick are representing three migrant farm workers who are trying to increase the constitutional protections afforded to workers employed in Ontario through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program.

Andrew Lokan and Lindsay Scott represented the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and individual litigants in Daniels v. HMQ at the Federal Court, seeking a declaration that the Federal Government is constitutionally responsible for approximately 600,000 Métis and Non-Status Indians, under s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The decision is currently on reserve at the Federal Court.

Linda Rothstein, Andrew Lokan and Michael Fenrick represented the Canadian Civil Liberties Association in R. v. Bedford, 2012 ONCA 186 in which the Ontario Court of Appeal struck down substantially all of the Criminal Code provisions regulating prostitution in Canada.

Ian Roland and Michael Fenrick appeared at the Supreme Court of Canada in the appeal of Fraser v. Ontario (Attorney-General), 2011 SCC 20 on behalf of the interveners, the Canadian Police Association (CPA). The CPA supported the Appellant's position that s. 2(d) of the Charter protects a process of collective bargaining that includes a dispute resolution mechanism.

Michael Fenrick was co-counsel to Professor Kent Roach of the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law on behalf of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association in the first three appeals to be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada respecting the constitutionality of the anti-terrorism offences in the Criminal Code.

R v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6 where Andrew Lokan and Danny Kastner represented the Canadian Civil Liberties Association at the Supreme Court of Canada and successfully argued that sentence reductions, even below mandatory minimum sentences, ought to be available as a remedy for unconstitutional state conduct in the criminal justice process.

Ian Roland, Jean-Claude Killey and Michael Fenrick acted on behalf of the intervener, the Canadian Police Association, in the Mounted Police Association of Ontario's successful Charter challenge of the statutory exclusion of RCMP officers from collective bargaining legislation in Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 CanLII 15149 (Ont. S.C.). The Attorney-General of Canada's appeal was heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

In R v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6, Andrew Lokan and Nini Jones represented the Canadian Civil Liberties Association at the Supreme Court of Canada and argued that mandatory minimum sentences for unlawful act manslaughter violate s.12 of the Charter, and that constitutional exemptions may be an appropriate remedy where the mandatory minimum would result in a grossly disproportionate sentence.

In 2011, Andrew Lokan and Jodi Martin acted for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association as interveners before the Federal Court in a constitutional challenge to the hate speech provision (section 13) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The decision in Lemire v. Canadian Human Rights Commission is pending.

In 2011, Andrew Lokan and Jodi Martin appeared at the Supreme Court of Canada, on behalf of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, in Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. William Whatcott. The CCLA supported the respondent's position that section 14 of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Act violates section 2(b) of the Charter. Andrew Lokan also appeared twice at the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in Whatcott v. Saskatchewan Association of Licensed Practical Nurses, 2008 SKCA 6 and Whatcott v. Saskatchewan (Human Rights Tribunal), 2010 SKCA 26.

Rob Centa was involved in the successful challenge to the constitutionality of the federal security certificate regime, on behalf of our clients the International Human Rights Clinic at the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto and Human Rights Watch, who intervened before the Supreme Court of Canada in the Charkaoui, Harkat, and Almrei, 2007 SCC 9 cases.

In Broomer et al. v. Ontario, Rob Centa represented the CCLA in a constitutional challenge to the life-time ban on receipt of welfare benefits for individuals convicted of welfare fraud.

In Jehovah's Witnesses v. Village of Lafontaine, 2004 SCC 48, Andrew Lokan and Megan Shortreed represented the Canadian Civil Liberties Association as an intervener at the Supreme Court of Canada in respect of a challenge to the decision of a municipality to deny permission to a religious group to build a church.

In Mussani v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2003 CanLII 45308 (Ont. Div. Ct.), Linda Rothstein and Rob Centa acted for the College of Nurses of Ontario in successfully defending the constitutionality of legislation mandating the revocation of a health practitioner's licence where the practitioner sexually abused a patient. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the legislation's constitutionality in 2004 CanLII 48653 (O.C.A.).

In R. v. Malmo-Levine, 2003 SCC 74, Andrew Lokan and Andrew Lewis represented the Canadian Civil Liberties Association as an intervener at the Supreme Court of Canada in respect of a challenge to the criminal prohibition of the possession of cannabis.

In Dunmore v. Ontario, 2001 SCC 94, Chris Paliare successfully argued at the Supreme Court of Canada that the total exclusion of agricultural workers from Ontario's collective bargaining regime contravened the Charter.

Corporate Commercial Litigation

In February 2018, Jeff Larry and Lindsay Scott successfully represented a group of investors in the Superior Court of Justice – Commercial List in an oppression application, where Justice McEwen held that the respondent development company and its director had engaged in oppression, and found bad faith and personal liability against the director.

They successfully defended the employee in contempt proceedings in which Mr. Moyse’s former employer sought to have him sent to prison for breach of a court order (2015 ONSC 4388 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/gm3x1). Subsequently, they successfully moved to have the employer’s appeal to the Court of Appeal from that decision quashed (2015 ONCA 784 http://canlii.ca/t/gm3x1), and to the Divisional Court dismissed for delay (2016 ONSC 554 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/gn1mk)

At the trial of the action, the plaintiff advanced the tort of spoliation against Mr. Moyse, the first time such a claim had been advanced to trial in Ontario. The court dismissed the action against Mr. Moyse was dismissed in its entirety (2016 ONSC 5271 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/gt24t). Mr. Moyse was wholly successful on appeal. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal from the trial judge, and the motion for the motion for leave to appeal the costs decision (The Catalyst Capital Group Inc. v. Moyse, 2018 ONCA 283 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/hr4gx)

Together with Chris Paliare and Jean-Claude Killey, Megan Shortreed represented Edith Neuberger in Neuberger v. York, 2016 ONCA 191, a leading case about estoppel and the conduct of Estate Trustees. Our client was successful at the Ontario Court of Appeal, and leave was denied at the Supreme Court of Canada, 2016 CanLII 60508 (SCC).

Chris Paliare, Gordon Capern, Odette Soriano, Karen Jones, Tina Lie and Alysha Shore represented Barrick Gold against Goldcorp, Xstrata and New Gold in a battle over ownership of a Chilean copper-gold mine. In 2011, the action was heard by way of an expedited trial before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List. The matter involved the application of Chilean law by an Ontario court.

Linda Rothstein and Megan Shortreed acted for a prominent Canadian family in a complex multi-party trusts and estates case. Through extensive litigation and negotiations, we obtained disclosure and through settlement recovered the family's assets from the former and current trustees and their legal advisors.

Linda Rothstein and Robert Centa successfully defended a prominent Toronto law firm from a claim made by a former partner of the firm in Springer v Aird & Berlis LLP, 2009 CanLII 15661 (Ont. S.C.). The Court of Appeal for Ontario recently upheld the decision of the trial judge to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Chris Paliare, Megan Shortreed and Jean Claude Killey acted for the successful corporate defendant in a complex trial that dealt with the appropriate remedy for breach of fiduciary duty and oppression by its principal shareholder. The court held that Paliare Roland's corporate client would not be subject to a proprietary constructive trust remedy: Capobianco v. Paige, 2009 CanLII 29899 (Ont. S.C.)

Leader Media v. Sentinel Hill, in which Chris Paliare and Andrew Lewis successfully represented the plaintiff at trial (2006 CanLII 35630 (Ont. S.C.), and at the Court of Appeal (2008 ONCA 463), in a contractual dispute involving tax shelter structures in the film industry.

Gordon Capern and Megan Shortreed argued and won the leading case on who is entitled to participate in an application for leave to commence a derivative action under the Ontario Business Corporations Act at the Court of Appeals for Ontario: Lederer v. 372116 Ontario Limited2001 CanLII 24159 (O.C.A.).

Megan Shortreed acted for the successful "non-media" defendants who got a libel claim against them struck out because they were not served with notice pursuant to the Libel and Slander Act. This was the seminal decision on the requirement of notice for alleged libel in a "broadcast" under the Act: Filion v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2000 CanLII 22387 (Ont. S.C.).

Gordon Capern and Megan Shortreed brought a successful oppression application, on behalf of a minority shareholder in a company, involving the alleged misappropriation of international mining assets.

Employment Law

Together with Chris Paliare and Jean-Claude Killey, Megan Shortreed represented Edith Neuberger in Neuberger v. York, 2016 ONCA 191, a leading case about estoppel and the conduct of Estate Trustees. Our client was successful at the Ontario Court of Appeal, and leave was denied at the Supreme Court of Canada, 2016 CanLII 60508 (SCC).

Chris Paliare and Richard Stephenson acted successfully for Tom Mason in the Ontario Court of Appeal in Mason v. Chem-Trend, 2011 ONCA 344. The case is now a leading Canadian authority on the (non) enforceability of restrictive covenants in employment agreements.

Chris Paliare, Richard Stephenson and Susan Brown argued successfully before the Ontario Divisional Court in Weisz v. Four Seasons Holdings Inc.,2010 ONSC 4456 that an arbitration provision stipulating that the decision of an arbitrator will be final and binding precludes an appeal of the arbitrator's decision.

Chris Paliare and Andrew Lewis investigated allegations of unauthorized access to player emails by senior executives of the National Hockey League Players Association, and provided advice to the Executive Board of the Players Association respecting the executives' employment.

In Calabrese v. Weekes, 2003 CanLII 3311 (Ont. S.C.), Rob Centa successfully represented an NHL goaltender in an appeal of an arbitration award arising from a dispute between the player and his former agent.

Saunders v. Chateau des Charmes Wines Ltd., 2002 CanLII 5114 (Ont. S.C.) in which Andrew Lewis successfully argued at trial that the plaintiff employee had been constructively dismissed from his employment by his supervisor's improper conduct.

Don Eady represented a number of trade unions before arbitrators, the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal on the issue of whether the employer or the employee should be required to pay the Ontario Health Premium.

Human Rights

Zeng v. The Governing Council of the University of Toronto – Robert Centa – 2018 CarswellOnt 14162 (Div. Ct.) – Public Law/Judicial Review - Fact member of committee found in favour of applicant in past did not constitute reasonable apprehension of bias when viewed from perspective of reasonable person cognizant of all relevant facts, and nothing in conduct of hearing met test for reasonable apprehension of bias — Applicant did not ask member to recuse herself and was barred from raising issue of reasonable apprehension of bias — Applicant had not shown denial of procedural fairness, as he was represented at hearing and received legal advice throughout — Committee was alive to existence of applicant's disability issues and gave consideration to whether they should impact result — There was no error of fact or law that rendered committee's decision unreasonable.

Nini Jones and Glynnis Hawe successfully represented the Ontario Provincial Police Association in a grievance that advanced the scope of the OPP’s obligations in respect of the mental health of its employees: http://canlii.ca/t/htshr

Don Eady and Jessica Latimer represented the Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union against the Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services before the Grievance Settlement Board(“GSB”) with respect to two grievances filed on behalf of an employee. The first grievance alleged that the Ministry had condoned harassment and discrimination of the employee because of his sexual orientation and had allowed a poisoned work environment to persist in the workplace. The second grievance alleged that the Ministry had failed to accommodate the employee when he became ill as a result of the harassment and discrimination and the poisoned work environment . In 2011, the GSB found for the union and declared that the Ministry had breached the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code. In the second decision, the GSB had to determine the amount of damages that flowed from the finding of liability. In a decision released in July, 2013, the GSB awarded the employee compensatory damages totalling $98,000 as well as lost vacation and a top up until retirement of overtime and shift premiums the employee would have received if he had been able to remain employed in the correctional facility. The $98,000 award is the largest ever compensatory damages award made by the Grievance Settlement Board. To read the decision, click here.

Nini Jones successfully argued on behalf of OPSEU in Arias v. Centre for Spanish Speaking Peoples, 2009 HRTO 1025 that a union cannot be to have violated the Human Rights Code simply by failing to properly or adequately represent one of its members.

Nini Jones, Tina Lie and Nasha Nijhawan successfully argued Krieger v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2008 HRTO 183 before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, a case involving the discriminatory termination of a probationary police officer. In Krieger, the Tribunal ordered the reinstatement of the police officer's employment, the first case to do so under the new human rights regime in Ontario.

Judicial Inquiries and Inquests

Linda Rothstein and Denise Cooney represented the College of Nurses of Ontario in The Long-Term Care Homes Public Inquiry, ordered as a result of Elizabeth Wettlaufer’s conviction of eight counts of first degree murder, four counts of attempted murder and two counts of aggravated assault, offences she committed while working as a registered nurse in Long-Term Care Homes.

Chris Paliare, Linda Rothstein and Karen Jones represented the College of Chiropractors of Ontario in the coroner's inquest into the death of Lana Dale Lewis.

Linda Rothstein and Jean-Claude Killey represented a developer at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry, which inquired into a failed agreement between private parties to purchase land in Mississauga's City Centre for the purpose of building a luxury hotel and conference centre, the subsequent purchase of the same land by the City of Mississauga for the purpose of constructing a Sheridan College campus, and the relationship of Mayor Hazel McCallion to the various parties involved.

Ian Roland, Don Eady and Rob Centa represented OPSEU and certain of its members at the Walkerton Inquiry.

Linda Rothstein and Rob Centa acted as commission counsel, assisting Commissioner, the Honourable Mr. Justice Stephen Goudge of the Court of Appeal for Ontario at the Pediatric Forensic Pathology Inquiry into the oversight of Ontario’s pediatric forensic pathology system, including the work of Dr. Charles Smith.

Ian Roland and Karen Jones, represented the Ontario Provincial Police Association and its members at the Ipperwash Inquiry. More than 30 OPPA members were called as witnesses to testify at the Inquiry.

Linda Rothstein, Gordon Capern, Lily Harmer, Andrew Lewis and Rob Centa acted as counsel to the City of Toronto at the Toronto Computer Leasing Inquiry, into all aspects of leasing contracts and related software between the City of Toronto and MFP Financial Services and Oracle, and the Toronto External Contracts Inquiry, into certain other external contracts entered into by the City of Toronto.

Labour Law

Nini Jones has acted for numerous police associations in respect of the disbandment of their police services to ensure that their rights are protected and that their employees are treated fairly, including recently with Emily Home for the Midland Police Association: http://canlii.ca/t/ht173

Nini Jones, Jodi Martin, and Glynnis Hawe represented the Waterloo Regional Police Association in a class action proceeding brought against it by current and former members. They were successful in arguing that the civil courts have no jurisdiction over such claims and, in the alternative, that there was no cause of action to warrant certification: http://canlii.ca/t/ht01m

Nini Jones and Glynnis Hawe successfully represented the Ontario Provincial Police Association in a grievance that advanced the scope of the OPP’s obligations in respect of the mental health of its employees: http://canlii.ca/t/htshr

In College of Nurses of Ontario v Wettlaufer, 2017 CanLII 77173 (ON CNO), Megan Shortreed acted as prosecuting counsel in revoking the nursing license of convicted serial killer nurse, Elizabeth Wettlaufer, before the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario.

Don Eady, Andrew Lokan and Emily Lawrence represented OPSEU in two applications for certification filed with the Ontario Labour Relations Board involving part-time academic and support staff at 24 community colleges. These applications are the largest applications for certification ever filed at the OLRB involving over 10,000 employees. As part of these applications, OPSEU challenged the exclusion of the part-time academic and support staff from statutory collective bargaining under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Don Eady, Danny Kastner and Jodi Martin represented ATU Local 113 in a dispute over the conditions required for a free and fair union certification vote.

During the Ontario public service strike in March, April and May, 2002, Don Eady, Nick Coleman, John Monger, Andrew Lewis and Robert Centa (among others) represented OPSEU in respect of all picketing and other matters before the Courts across the province.

Don Eady represented a number of trade unions before arbitrators, the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal on the issue of whether the employer or the employee should be required to pay the Ontario Health Premium.

Libel and Slander

Megan Shortreed acted for the successful "non-media" defendants who got a libel claim against them struck out because they were not served with notice pursuant to the Libel and Slander Act. This was the seminal decision on the requirement of notice for alleged libel in a "broadcast" under the Act: Filion v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2000 CanLII 22387 (Ont. S.C.).

Municipal and Planning Law

Chris Paliare and Richard Stephenson successfully represented our client the Building Industry and Land Development association (BILD) in responding to an appeal in the Divisional Court brought by the City of Toronto. The City sought to overturn a decision of the OMB (now LPAT) regarding the City’s new Development Permit System. The case raised important and novel issues with respect to both municipal planning and administrative law. See: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2019/2019onsc146/2019onsc146.html

Ombudsman of Ontario v. Hamilton (City) – Robert Centa and Denise Cooney 2018 CarswellOnt 8627 (ONCA) - Public Law/Judicial review Respondent city was subject of appellant provincial ombudsman's report — Ombudsman challenged city boards' private deliberations and issuing of reasons in private, after holding public hearings — Ombudsman issued complaint, and prepared report — City applied for judicial review of report, seeking declaratory relief — Application was granted in part — Reviewing court found that city boards were not local boards under law, and were outside ombudsman's jurisdiction — Reviewing court did not grant broader declaratory relief, as to ombudsman's jurisdiction — Ombudsman claimed reviewing court was in error, on issue of what was local board — City claimed that even if boards were considered local, deliberations were exempt from being made public — Ombudsman appealed from reviewing court's judgment — City cross-appealed — Appeal dismissed; no judgment made as to cross-appeal — City boards did not provide essential services, as to day-to-day operation of city — As investigative and adjudicative bodies, city boards' function was different than those identified as local boards — Ombudsman did not have jurisdiction to investigate alleged non-compliance.

Rob Centa and Denise Cooney represented the Ombudsman of Ontario before the Divisional Court and Court of Appeal on an application regarding the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate the deliberations of the City of Hamilton’s committees and local boards.

Chris Paliare and Michael Fenrick represented a developer in successfully resisting an appeal from a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board brought by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in The Legislative Assembly of Ontario v. Avenue-Yorkville Developments Ltd., 2011 ONSC 258.

Professional Discipline and Regulation

Zeng v. The Governing Council of the University of Toronto – Robert Centa – 2018 CarswellOnt 14162 (Div. Ct.) – Public Law/Judicial Review - Fact member of committee found in favour of applicant in past did not constitute reasonable apprehension of bias when viewed from perspective of reasonable person cognizant of all relevant facts, and nothing in conduct of hearing met test for reasonable apprehension of bias — Applicant did not ask member to recuse herself and was barred from raising issue of reasonable apprehension of bias — Applicant had not shown denial of procedural fairness, as he was represented at hearing and received legal advice throughout — Committee was alive to existence of applicant's disability issues and gave consideration to whether they should impact result — There was no error of fact or law that rendered committee's decision unreasonable.

Linda Rothstein, Jean-Claude Killey, and Daniel Rosenbluth, acted for the College of Opticians of Ontario and the College of Optometrists of Ontario in the Colleges’ successful application for an injunction preventing Essilor (which operates the website www.clearly.ca) from dispensing corrective lenses in Ontario without having a licensed or authorized person perform the dispensing. College of Optometrists of Ontario et al v. Essilor Group Canada Inc.,2018 ONSC 206.

In College of Nurses of Ontario v Wettlaufer, 2017 CanLII 77173 (ON CNO), Megan Shortreed acted as prosecuting counsel in revoking the nursing license of convicted serial killer nurse, Elizabeth Wettlaufer, before the Discipline Committee of the College of Nurses of Ontario.

Nick Coleman represented the Ontario College of Pharmacists in Ibrahim v. Ontario College of Pharmacists, (2011) 19 Admin. L.R. (5th) 122, a decision of the Divisional Court confirming that the right of appeal from a decision of a Discipline Committee under the Health Professions Procedural Code is available only for final decisions and not interlocutory decisions of the tribunal. The related application for judicial review for a decision regarding production of third party records was also dismissed as premature in Ibrahim v. Ontario College of Pharmacists, [2011] O.J. No. 2427.

Chris Paliare and Karen Jones represented the College of Chiropractors in Leering v. College of Chiropractors of Ontario, 2010 ONCA 87, a successful appeal of a judicial review decision of the Divisional Court, affirming that there is no exception to accommodate spouses in the zero-tolerance policy regarding health professionals who engage in sexual relations with their patients.

Ian Roland and Michael Fenrick represented the Canadian Police Association before the Supreme Court of Canada in Penner v. Niagara Police Services Board, a case which raises the application of the doctrine of issue estoppel in the context of police discipline.

Public and Administrative Law

Zeng v. The Governing Council of the University of Toronto – Robert Centa – 2018 CarswellOnt 14162 (Div. Ct.) – Public Law/Judicial Review - Fact member of committee found in favour of applicant in past did not constitute reasonable apprehension of bias when viewed from perspective of reasonable person cognizant of all relevant facts, and nothing in conduct of hearing met test for reasonable apprehension of bias — Applicant did not ask member to recuse herself and was barred from raising issue of reasonable apprehension of bias — Applicant had not shown denial of procedural fairness, as he was represented at hearing and received legal advice throughout — Committee was alive to existence of applicant's disability issues and gave consideration to whether they should impact result — There was no error of fact or law that rendered committee's decision unreasonable.

Ombudsman of Ontario v. Hamilton (City) – Robert Centa and Denise Cooney 2018 CarswellOnt 8627 (ONCA) - Public Law/Judicial review Respondent city was subject of appellant provincial ombudsman's report — Ombudsman challenged city boards' private deliberations and issuing of reasons in private, after holding public hearings — Ombudsman issued complaint, and prepared report — City applied for judicial review of report, seeking declaratory relief — Application was granted in part — Reviewing court found that city boards were not local boards under law, and were outside ombudsman's jurisdiction — Reviewing court did not grant broader declaratory relief, as to ombudsman's jurisdiction — Ombudsman claimed reviewing court was in error, on issue of what was local board — City claimed that even if boards were considered local, deliberations were exempt from being made public — Ombudsman appealed from reviewing court's judgment — City cross-appealed — Appeal dismissed; no judgment made as to cross-appeal — City boards did not provide essential services, as to day-to-day operation of city — As investigative and adjudicative bodies, city boards' function was different than those identified as local boards — Ombudsman did not have jurisdiction to investigate alleged non-compliance.

Rob Centa and Denise Cooney represented the Ombudsman of Ontario before the Divisional Court and Court of Appeal on an application regarding the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate the deliberations of the City of Hamilton’s committees and local boards.

Rob Centa and Michael Fenrick represented a major federal political party on an application for judicial review regarding whether or not the party’s decisions rejecting the applicant’s candidacy for the leadership of the party are properly the subject of judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act. Graff v New Democratic Party, 2017 ONSC 3578 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/h46sv

Don Eady, Nini Jones, Jodi Martin, Emily Home and Glynnis Hawe represented a group of intervenors who challenged the right of the Provincial Government to change the City of Toronto election ward boundaries in the midst of an election campaign. They were successful at the first instance. See http://canlii.ca/t/httrh. That decision was stayed by the Court of Appeal. See http://canlii.ca/t/hv54t. The appeal before the Court of Appeal is ongoing and will be heard by a 5 member panel of the Court of Appeal on June 10 and 11, 2019. Paliare Roland represented the intervenors on a pro bono basis.

Megan Shortreed and Michael Fenrick acted for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in a case that determined that the Board has standing to bring a motion to quash an appeal from its own decision, and that no appeal lies from an interlocutory decision of the Board: Sazant v. R.M. and C.I.C.B., 2010 ONSC 4273.

At the Supreme Court of Canada, Richard Stephenson, Danny Kastner and Jodi Martin successfully represented the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), acting in support of the Consumers Association of Canada and the National Anti-Poverty Organization in Bell Canada v. Bell Aliant Regional Communications, 2009 SCC 40. The court agreed with PIAC's position that telecommunications service providers had overcharged telephone customers in the amount of approximately $300 million. The court ordered the amount rebated to customers.

Chris Paliare and Andrew Lokan (together with Ecojustice) in Friends of the Earth v. Canada (Governor in Council), 2008 FC 1183 represented Friends of the Earth in a judicial review application in the Federal Court to compel the federal government to comply with the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, requiring the government to develop and implement a plan to achieve compliance with Canada's obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.

Linda Rothstein and Megan Shortreed acted for the College of Nurses on a case which resolved important issues with respect to the interpretation of the Personal Health Information Protection Act (“PHIPA”) – in particular whether occupational health records of an employee who is a member of the College may be disclosed to the College and used in the course of a discipline investigation when the employee has not given consent to the disclosure: Hooper v.College of Nurses of Ontario2006 CanLII 22656 (Ont. Div. Ct.).